I'll skip my thinking as there seem to be a lot of sensitive people on this site nowadays . 

I agree 100%, the Softs should be there, many should not. But that does not stop me from spinning them on my turntable.

In general it's because they probably did 2 minutes of weird stuff that was not good and so the album gets dropped a whole point for it. However that theory doesn't explain SEBTP being the number two ranked album ( More Fool Me).

In my opinion you have to decide whether their albums are correctly rated. 5 of their 12 albums are rated over 4 stars with the highest being the third album at 4.21. Prog is not a pissing contest . They are well regarded and have one album that is more highly regarded. I suggest you read the reviews if you want to find out why they don't garner more 5 star reviews.

Meltdowner wrote: I remember Third was in the top 100 not so long ago, it was probably pushed down by some new and popular albums.

 

this happens a lot

I get a bit fed up saying but the best option is to filter the top 100 and only include albums with 1000 ratings . However Soft Machine still don't in the top 100 because none of their albums have 1000 ratings. Therefore I conclude that they are just not popular enough. Why this should be I really don't know as they are a legendary band for sure.

BTW Soft Machine 3 has 988 ratings so I changed the filter to this number and then they are number 73. Interestingly though all the other albums have at least 1000 ratings as there are none with ratings between 988 and 1000 that crash the list. Its definitely worth playing with the filter options!

 

It certainly should be in the top 100 IMO. 

 

In fact I would have it in the top 50

 

It's much better than many of the other albums in the top 100, but, as others have said, the ratings get screwed by a small number of fan boys for new albums

 

So, I totally agree regarding Third

 

Some of the other Soft Machine albums don't gel with me quite so much

 

 

;)

Don't get me wrong, Jazz is great, and Fourth is a good album.

It's just literally that a prog band with psychedelia and pop influences all of a sudden turns into Jazz in the next album. Not fusion, Jazz.

I don;t know what happened to Soft Machine after that, I lost interest. So did everyone else.

Second and Third are genuinely in my top albums of all time. Third is top 5.

edit: lol is there seriously a language filter on this forum? we've seen it all, and we can't even drop a f**king f bomb lol. Remember when Punk killed Prog and jonny and sid went on TV and swore a lot. They really hated prog and it's probably for reasons like this, let me curse!

In my opinion they are similar to Family: both bands have changed the line up and their music a lot in few years, and both bands came from the beat, the psychedelia of the sixities.

The other bands of the Canterbury scene played a more orthodox (and easier) prog rock.

Kinda strange to think/hear this ... there are, and were, a lot of artists and folks that do not like to "name" things because they suggest something that is not a part of their piece, and the idea of titles with just the sequential order was closer to that, than it was about some kind of meaning or idea about the music ... besides the obvious fact, that if it is a TRUE IMPROVISATION, the idea that it might mean something will be really hard to discuss since it goes everywhere and all over the place.

Again, I think that we're pretty much saying that improvisation is not valid music, without a title. And I think this is the idea/meaning behind Robert Wyatt's book title ... the music had stopped being "different every time", specially if it had to give in to the conventions of pop music!

BTW, I do not, name my poems at all and over 250 of them go strictly by their first line and nothing else ... simply for the sake of identification ... I have never felt comfortable with the naming of anything I do, just about, although it seems fine in the novels/stories I do. But numbers would not work for me, either, since it would take away the time/space element for me, that is so important to what I do ... and this would be another thing to ask/discuss about SM's work ... and I, personally, do not have a hard time with it, but imagine Shakespeare naming all of his plays in numbers ... would you read play #5 or #6? Instead of this or that? ... I imagine that Richard is quite right on that one!

There was seriously no band like Soft Machine. 

Third is weird a really murky recording quality but very inventive.

Fourth has a much clearer recording and way closer to straight jazz, but they were still pretty experimental. But there is music on this that has just become a part of me.

5th is a transition and it has some good music on.

6th the arrival of Karl Jenkins I'm not that keen on the live album, but the studio album is fantasic if very disparate, Chloe and the Pirates is one of my favourite soft Machine tracks

7 is nearly all Karl Jenkins it has nothing of the experimental feel of the earlier albums, but I like the music.

Bundles Alan Holdsworth on guitar cool compositions great cover

Softs - their most beautiful album a highly under rated album.

The Land of Cockayne - For me this has a kind of Henry Mancini vibe and I don't find that a bad thing a nice collection of music.

They'd certainly have something in my top 100

I think that SM is not going to be in a long list because it has no SONGS ... and our list is predicated on SONGS ... and nothing else, other than the favoritism of most folks. 

And the band, when it started and in its first albums ... was not quite interested in being a "song" band, and this, eventually gave the idea that SM was "Different Every Time" ... which became the name of Robert Wyatt's book ... and this is something that is really hard for "progressive music" listeners ... a band that continues changing and is different on the next album, and then the drummer has to leave, but he creates something even more different, in ROCK BOTTOM and RUTH IS STRANGER THAN FISH ... (couldn't help it!) ... which kinda made SM all of a sudden seem not so creative and important ... and because they could not play the same piece the same in two different nights (remember ... different every time!), it made this a very difficult band to be appreciated by a lot of fans ... only a hard core jazz fan would enjoy this ... and I'm not sure that many of the folks that like it (here) are hard core jazz fans that can appreciate the free form in a jazz style.

The highs are high but the lows are low.

Their sound is really difficult to pinpoint since they were always changing.

They never put out a solid album of great songs, start-to-finish, until Bundles.

All of the above.

I rest my case ... no "songs" specially in the first several albums when the band was "defined" ... and SM was not designed/defined to be a SONG BAND ... according to Robert Wyatt in his book ... and asking/demanding songs ... is weird to me!

Why, why ... does ALL MUSIC have to be defined by "songs" ... specially JAZZ? Which, in its roots was completely free form and only had a smattering of song bits so the musicians could come together and end it ... a process that Miles used a lot ... everyone does their thing when its their turn, and when he does this or that, they come together and finish on the stage he is in.

Pedro! Don't you know? Though music was devised to express one's self in one's leisure time, as a trade, it eventually (or quickly?) evolved to garner attention, notoriety, and, eventually, money (or food and favor). In order to garner attention, notoriety, and favor/food/money, musically-expressive men found that if they created riffs, ditties, or "songs" that people would/could recognize that their esteem and, naturally, prosperity increased. Sure, the jazz free-form expressiveness was a part of jazz, but a very small part. As you yourself said, they always started "together" with a common thread or theme and then came back to that common thread at the end, otherwise they would loose their audience (and means to life-sustaining goods) (unless, of course, the audience was made up solely of either other musicians or aristocratic dilettantes with lots of leisure and disposable property [food, money, etc.]). Audiences move toward an artist because of the familiar emotion-provoking themes that these artists have created--be it one memorable "hit" or a particular sound (like the unique and refreshing sound of early Soft Machine). The improvisational bits that artists are able to squeeze into their live performances are only permitted/tolerated in proportion to the esteem that the audience member(s) hold for that artist. A person dragged along to a concert by a friend that really admires the band they're going to see might be very bored or wholly sucked into what they see and hear--there is no accounting for individual tastes. I see that more prog fans remain "loyal" to their old heroes and those old reproductions of music than to newer, lesser known bands. sure, we all want to see/hear the "hot" new sensation, but we are still being mostly informed by our cumulative "histories" with other bands, other musics, other stories, our own stories. The people who have heard The Soft Machine's albums are undoubtedly fewer in number than those who have heard Yes, Genesis, Steven Wilson, etc. I have a feeling that smaller percentages of people that have heard Soft Machine are won over and sucked into fanship than those who hear the more familiar sounds, subjects, and structures of Yes, Genesis, and Steven Wilson--thus, the lower ratings to support Soft Machine's albums into places among the Top 100. 

Don't get me wrong: I love to be blown away by the technical and lyrical wizardry of improvising musicians while they're performing live, but I like to have the familiar framework (e.g. a rendition from a studio recording) as it helps me to better appreciate the creativity of the instrumentalist, but 100% free form noodling? I have to be in the right mood--prepared and receptive.

     I once attended a Utopia concert in a hockey arena in which Starcastle opened (impressively) before Todd and his quartet took the small stage. They were dressed in white undershirts and black pants with no stage decor; everything was black and white and grey, the stage and show was absolutely void of color. They played only songs from their new release Oops! Wrong Planet which was so new that not many people had a chance to get to know the music. Then they left. The lights came up and easily 3800 of the approximately 4000 audience members in attendance left--some quietly, others booing. My roommate and I stayed, in disbelief that what we had just seen was it--was all that Todd had for us. After about 20 minutes, or faith and patience was rewarded as suddenly a curtain behind the simple little stage that we had been standing in front of was lifted to reveal a huge golden pyramid topped with a gold Tutankhamen mask framed by an even larger 40-foot pyramid frame in the back of a massive stage. The band came out dressed in wild psychedelic/Egyptian-themed regalia, proceeded to open with Todd saying, "It's nice to see a few Utopians remain in the fold" or something to that effect before launching into the guitar theme and vocal section the "Utopia Theme" and then playing virtually every song from "Ra" and part of "The Ikon." 

     My point is, the familiar stuff is what brought many people, not hearing it, they left. Those of us who were more deeply invested in Todd--"fans"--who had developed more trust and faith in his decision-making--were able to be more patient and trusting of the artist's process (for which we were amply rewarded). Sometimes it's just to be in a famed artist's presence, sometimes it's to really tune in and revel in the craftsmanship, sometimes it's just to hear and see the familiar (or to compare to that which you already know). Despite the Soft Machine's talent, I doubt that many people came to those shows on the 1968 U.S. tour with Hendrix that were there for the Brits (though, hopefully, some became converts and "fans" because of it). My dad used to go with his college buddies to a club in Georgetown that had become Louis Armstrong's "home" venue in the 1950s--despite the fact that Louis's lip cancer prevented him from playing much (or any) trumpet. (He sang and led the band.) My dad went cuz he loved jazz (esp. drumming), loved drinking with his buddies, and because it was "Louis Armstrong." Louis performed cuz that was his life, his passion, and that's how he earned the money to pay his bills. I have a feeling that his audience came to expect "songs" that the Maestro was known for as well as to see some of the band's creative artistry. "Songs" serve their purpose.

I disagree. I have been into expressive, experimental and all the weirdness that rock music has tried ... and almost none of it has as much to show me, or LIVE within my memory as the Bernard Herrmann Sci-Fi soundtracks, or the experiments of Beaver & Krause, or the soundtrack for Forbidden Planet ... way before Tangerine Dream even knew what a synthesizer was ... but many years later they paid their tribute!

I had heard and seen, Sun Ra, Miles, and many blacks in Chicago (they visited Madison a lot -- only 3 hours up the road) doing blues, harmonica and above all JAZZ, which for some obscure reason Chicago is not even considered a jazz town! And a night with Miles in 1967 or 1968, was a night that never ended, and the night I saw him he played "one" piece of music for an hour, then asked if he could take a break to get a drink of water, and then came back and gave you one more piece that was an hour long ... I can't even say, or tell you if these were pieces fro various other things in the records or not ... but I have never seen a recording of his long stuff ... because America is about SONGS ... and everyone hates the long stuff that is never the same ... and radio, in America is the worst, when it comes to that ... even in 1968, in Madison one of the better known jerks would play a Jimi song, and immediately turn around and say ... enough politics and heavy stuff and play yummy yummy bs right after it ... the disrespect for the music and its meaning was scary ... totally scary ... and no one did anything about it! Trust me we tried. 

BrufordFreak wrote: ... Audiences move toward an artist because of the familiar emotion-provoking themes that these artists have created--be it one memorable "hit" or a particular sound (like the unique and refreshing sound of early Soft Machine).  ... The improvisational bits that artists are able to squeeze into their live performances are only permitted/tolerated in proportion to the esteem that the audience member(s) hold for that artist.  ...

Weird ... no one that I know, and specially the folks that 46 years later still talk about Space Pirate Radio because they heard all that far out and weird and different stuff ... has EVER complained about the improvisational anything, from Tangerine Dream to Klaus Schulze, to long cuts from many bands around the world.

I think that you are projecting something that you prefer to know and "understand" if you see those elements. 

At that time, I was already into theater, film and directing ... and the most experimental of things were ALWAYS the best everywhere, and to this day, folks that say things like you just did, have a way to prevent an Alexandro Jodorowski, a Luis Bunuel, a Peter Brook, even a Terry Gilliam (later) from doing what they do best ... which is work within a "MOMENT" that has no demarcation lines, and there were many theater groups that completely blew your idea of theater inside out ... like THE LIVING THEATER ... and ended up doing some memorable stuff that still stands up today as truly exceptional. 

Rock music, and a lot of other music, can only counter with "songs" and their fame, and appreciation with a "closed audience" ... the FANs! The talent was not there ... because if it were there would be no reason for them not to show it!

What made SM famous and exceptional was their complete disdain for form, clear in their first albums, with the exception of one piece, which I think was the one that helped get them more attention ... and it is the 1,2,3 bit ... and more than likely it was used in the "Tonight We All Love in London" when they were being completely ignored and they break into a jig to jolt the audience into waking up ... until then, it's like every one was star gazing ... and both YOU AND I would likely do something similar if we were caught in a situation playing, and being totally ignored ... maybe even pulling off a Flea ... just to get some attention and shake the cobwebs off people's ears!  It's bits and pieces that deserve a movie ... 

Experimental music is just that, and this was the reason why there were so many TD bootlegs for a long time, because it was difficult and nearly impossible to get the stuff set up again, and then prepared to do something they had done ... it was literally impossible for Chris Franke (example) for a couple of years to be able to duplicate his sequencing! By the time Stratosfear was here, it was way better, and the synths started having some memory to work with, but generally the stuff was still different ... and you can witness the two live albums from that time ... and Live in America is a perfect example of how difficult it was to redo anything.

Again, the saddest thing, is to consider that SM was about "songs" ... it wasn't ... but, you are right, specially in America ... the fans would want to hear one or two pieces from the THIRD exactly as it is on the album ... and it was NEVER EVER going to happen ... but we can't accept that and in fact, hate it ... because our favorite moments would either not be there, or something else would be.

Please allow music to be "free" of its chains and forms. It is the sickest thing ever done to the human spirit of creativity! Censorship through the eyes of the fans and popular sales! And so many folks can't even see themselves caught in that web!

Pedro, I think our differing perspectives are a perfect example of the microcosm of the human experience: you seem to come from an insider's point of view while I come from the realm of the aforementioned "aristocratic dilettante." Also, my focus on the arts was never as significant or obsessive (never career-orienting) as to go as deeply into the "scene" as you and several other much-better-informed personages on this site are. I respect and enjoy your "insider's" perspective--I learn a lot; you make me think far outside the box of my own meager perspectives. Still, I wonder if the percentage of artists able to "make a living" at their craft would be as great as it is were it not for the common, small-minded "needs" of "fans" like me and other "aristocratic" patrons?

P.S. Don't you think that the experience of watching & enjoying improvisational artistic expression is a preference, that is, something that not every human being shares equally?  

For me the Soft Machine phase. in which the albums from Third to Six were released, is a high point of music.

Apart from these 4 albums, which are all excellent, I also recommend the several Live Albums (including of course the BBC sessions), which were released from that time span on CD meanwhile. There are some further great tracks on them next to several improvisations, and the well known album pieces often sound different from concert to concert. It's all very entertaining stuff.

Seven is a less interesting album, but the early stuff, some kind of Avantgarde Pop, is also fun to hear.

NO.

If you appreciate the art form, be it music or anything else, seeing someone create a piece or "live through it" is a learning experience for you and I ... with the only problem being that "reviews" have already killed that work because it is not about the "audience' and what it expects from the artist.

Look ... you don't go to see a Misha (Barishnikov) and expect to see ... what you want ... you probably would if it were Nureyev and Fonteyn doing their famous duet ... but in general, you didn't go to see Yehudi Menuhin and Ravi Shankar to hear some bits from Mozart's 69th Violin Concerto or Ravi's 134th Etude for Sitar! You go for the excitement of the music possibilities ... and HERE IS WHERE THE "ROCK" audiences fail ... they only see the same thing, and not expand their inner sights.

I got to see Picasso do his thing ... and I have been near many bands, and traveled with 2 of them, and there was a massive difference ... and one of these was not interested in comments and concentrated on something he saw, and he would not have worried if the guitar was out of tune or not ... he would still manage to create his piece! The other two were very fine for me, no worries there, and I hold them dear to my heart, but they can never replace the incredible sight of a Yehudi Menuhin, a Ravi Shankar, a Misha, and some artists that were above the popular front ... and gave us something that you had never seen before!

I have spent my whole life around folks that express their inner side ... they work in the internal side of things, and the audience has no say in what their work is ... they do their "inner movie" ... just like you might not be able to ... and this is the definition of a lot of art ...not something that copies something else ... and this is what you learn when you are in a house with 40K books of literature from 3 languages mostly, and you RECOGNIZE QUICKLY why they are there ... it's not because of the fans, or because they sold more books ... it's because of the art form itself ... 

AND THIS IS WHAT SOME FOLKS HERE CAN NOT APPRECIATE ... and spend their time making sure they say something totally empty and invisible about something they have not and will not experience!

PA is a magnificent opportunity to see these things and learn from them ... so what do we do? Ignore it all and go back to the standard top of the pops and what we want them to do ... so much for an art form, because as the old codger friend of ours would say ... this is all poppycock pop music, anyway ... and sadly, it is, and the folks can't see it.

I wish/hope to elevate the artists and pure creators of art ... not bring them down because of sales ... since no one here (just about!!!) can relate to someone doing their art, because it's all they know and because it's all they want to do! has nothing to do with anything else, including some folks trying to make me feel guilty because this or that guy can't even feed his wife and kid ... neither did many folks before him for hundreds of years ... and we end up remembering their art!

Your comment has no art in it, and the sadness that it seems to express, is nothing but an issue with someone that you do not understand and can not relate to, because you are not willing to discuss innovative arts ... and instead prefer  to do this with a crowd that can only "agree" with you.

It doesn't matter if "ADMIN" tolerates this or not ... I have done more, and continue to do so, for progressive music, than you can imagine, but because you feel belittled by it, you make it look like I am the nonsense person ... and the one inventing ideas and comments.

I would tell you where "Moshkito" came from ... but since being literary/artistic is not a part of your dogma, I don't see the point!

Best wishes ... it's a shame that all friends can do is kiss each others ______ so they can feel like they can relate ... to a larger audience so they can feel more important. I'm not here to feel important or to glorify my whatever! AND you know it, but it rankles you that I can say something, and you DON'T, except to comment on the person who DID say something!

I don't really care for the first 2 albums either but I really appreciate and still spin their latter day albums.  I have plenty of time for Fourth onward.

 

If an album is great, it can be nameless and no one cares (like Led Zeppelin ZoSo or IV or whatever it is).

And Black Sabbath Vol. 4 is and always will be Black Sabbath Vol. 4 (and you can picture the album cover as soon as you mention Vol. 4). Of course, Led Zeppelin I, II or III come to mind as albums one knows right off the bat as not needing a proper title.

But it can get out of hand. Once you get past the first VI or VII Chicago albums, it gets confusing. I think they're up to XXXVI or something. One needs an abacus after a while.

2- Because it is based on ratings.

3- Because tastes are subjective.

4- Because you could make a thread about any other band that you enjoy and is not in the top 100

5- Because I thought everything listed above was obvious already?

THIRD has been in the top 100, at least 2-3 times since I've been watching the top 100 on and off (since 2008); its one that tends to bounce around the 100 mark.  So, it wouldn't surprise me if it gets there again-- currently pretty close at 107.  I'm a fan, and agree: it should be in; I classify it with a rare set of albums that has a brilliant uniqueness. 

Yet you can see why its not quite making it with comments in this thread of folks who have tried but just cant get into it--they're going to tend to rate it lower, which is especially going to keep a cap on it if those people are "Prog Reviewers" or "Senior Members" (the way its currently set up/weighted).

Or, perhaps you could blame the introduction of a few albums from the 2000's, now in the top 100; there are 12 as of this writing, most of which I don't consider as good as Third, but so it goes.  At least those newer ones tend to fall over time.

but your talking about Black Sabbath and Led Zep . They could get away with anything back in the day but that also flows through to the present.IMO 

Van Damme Generator.

richardh wrote: The other thing that occurred to me is that albums become a lot less memorable when they don't have a proper name. I really hate it when artists just go 1,2,3 etc. WTF . Pick a proper name ffs. For this reason I'm more likely to play Bundles than an album just called 3 or Third.

At least it's better than Tony Banks, who's been doing the same thing in recent times, except in reverse order

Didn't Three used to be a Top 20 PA album?  Either way, I'd take Three over a chunk of that list.....and Three is probably my fifth or sixth favorite Softs album.

I just saw this, about a year late. What about Peter Gabriel? His first few albums just had odd pictures on the cover, and folks just shrugged and gave them equally weird names after the fact (Car, Scratch, Melt). Then he started using two-letter adverbs, adjectives and pronouns: So, Up, Us. 

Paul Hertzog if I'm not mistaken .

But actually Land of Cockayne is not really a SM album. It was a solo album by one of their members, who btw  wasn't one of the legendary original members, and that album was just sold under the SM moniker, and nobody cared for that then.

Hmm, I never tried to hear that. I actually stopped with Seven (which is already way weaker than the previous albums), and have only a CD sampler of their later output, and this sampler rightfully does not contain material from the Cockayne land.

I've never had a problem with the first 4 PG albums (it's actually one of my go-to music quiz questions) in fact I never knew they had these other titles such as "Melt" until I joined PA.

I'm ok with So but still get confused by Up and Us.

Don't worry, you're not the only one. I much prefer Bundles to Soft Machine's earlier albums too. 

Hi,

This is one of the reasons why the TOP 100 should not have the same band listed for another album within it ... instead it should say "Band A - 1, 2 and 3" or something similar.

Were the list trimmed down from the over abundance of crap listed and 3 and 4 albums by at least a few bands, the list would easily include 15 to 20 other bands ... but, again, my concern is that the list is not about the music ... it's about FANBOYS and FANDOM!

So sad to think that was originally started as "progressive" music became only known for its "fanstuff" ... and not the music itself ... how weird, and off center is that? And it destroys the ability of new bands to create new material, because now it's not about the music, it's about the "sound" ... !!!!    (... ohhh I forgot ... the blue guitar and the flaming organ and the .... for those that don't know what music is all about!)

Hi,

In general, you have to drop off any ideas about "music" and what it is supposed to have or not have. 

In those days, the "difference" was important, and helped make the music come alive, but what you are saying is that there weren't any bands in NY, SF, LA, Paris, Tokyo. Rome ... that did not do the same thing or differently so.

If you listen to ANYTHING with ideas or thoughts about the things that "you like" ... too many of the new things you hear will not click. 

One of the highlights of my career of having music around me, has been ... when you hear so much and enjoy so much ... you can not even decide which is better or worse ... because you learn to fly and flow with all of it regardless ... and SOFT MACHINE was not a weird one ... it was a well defined thing that changed a lot and made sure it did not get stuck in "jazz standards" ... let's just say that it was Miles non stop ... something that a lot of folks here can not handle at all! But they can handle RW repeating his riffs on another synthesizer to give you an idea of what "musicianship" is all about! 

You can also get a better idea about all this if you read Robert Wyatt's book ... one of the best ever written, and the understanding and appreciation for something different, comes alive ... but, sadly, it is not something that most "progressive" folks can stomach ... how sad that is ... the end of progressive music!

I bet Khan's Space Shanty album isn't in the Top 100 either, even though it's a highly-regarded Canterbury Scene album. 

What are we betting? I'd love footy season tickets. I'll be kind and stay on the cheap side of Trent and take Magpies' tickets (spoiler: they have been my adopted English underdog for some time).

Anyway, Space Shanty is 71. I would argue that is a bit lofty. But to each, there own.